Sometime prior to June 19, 2003, a man, (“the client”), hired Attorney Thomas A. Van Beckum of Kenosha to represent his company and him individually in a Waukesha County action. The client wanted to file suit against several former employees and officers of his company, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, conversion and breach fiduciary duty. On June 19, 2003, Van Beckum filed a complaint in Waukesha County Circuit Court initiating the civil action on behalf of the client and the client’s company against twelve named defendants.

The multiple defendants, represented by four different law firms, filed motions to dismiss and extensive written discovery. The defendants filed several motions to dismiss based upon personal jurisdiction. The defendants’ motions to dismiss were originally scheduled to be heard on October 27, 2003; however, Van Beckum failed to timely serve his clients’ response to the defendants’ motions to dismiss, causing the hearing to be rescheduled to November 17, 2003, when the motions were heard. Van Beckum’s client was advised of and attended both of these hearings. Ultimately, Van Beckum was successful in defeating the defendants’ motions to dismiss based upon personal jurisdiction.

Van Beckum and the client prepared and served answers to the defendants’ initial written discovery requests, but the answers were not satisfactory to the defendants. Therefore, on January 26, 2004, one of the defendants filed a motion to compel discovery that would substantiate plaintiffs’ claims against that defendant. Van Beckum filed a motion for a protective order with regard to discovery from another set of defendants, to be heard during a hearing on Monday, February 23, 2004. While Van Beckum and the client prepared and served supplemental responses to some of the interrogatories and requests for admissions which were the subject of the motion to compel, Van Beckum served them on the Friday preceding the hearing and filed them on the morning of the February 23, 2004 hearing. During the February 23, 2004 hearing, a discussion was had concerning the inadequacy of the plaintiffs’ responses and the breadth of the written discovery. The court granted leave for the clients to further respond; however, the court also ordered sanctions to be paid to certain defendants in the form of attorney’s fees for the February 23, 2004 hearing due to Van Beckum’s and the clients’ failure to timely file meaningful and substantive responses. Van Beckum did not inform the client of the continuing need to respond to the discovery motions and requests or of the sanctions ordered during the February 23, 2004 hearing.

Between April 14 and May 17, 2004, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the case or, alternatively, for sanctions or summary judgment, based on the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the discovery requests and orders discussed at the February 23, 2004 hearing, including their failure to respond to requests for admissions. These motions were scheduled to be heard during a hearing on June 14, 2004. Van Beckum did not inform the client about the motions or about the hearing scheduled for June 14, 2004. Further, Van Beckum did not prepare any documentation in opposition to the motions to be heard at the June 14, 2004 hearing. Van Beckum has indicated that he was suffering from depression in 2004. Van Beckum has also indicated that as his personal and emotional problems intensified, and his belief that there were weaknesses in the case intensified, his avoidance of the case intensified, resulting in his failure to properly respond to the motions.

During the June 14, 2004 hearing, Van Beckum advised the court that he was suffering from some personal problems and needed to withdraw from his representation of the client and the client’s company. Van Beckum further advised the court that it was his “fault” that the discovery responses and responses to the requests for admission had not been filed, not his clients’ fault. Van Beckum attributed the discovery violations to his own escalating personal problems, not his clients’ actions. Van Beckum had not, as of June 14, 2004, advised the client of his personal problems or of his need to withdraw from the representation.

During the June 14, 2004 hearing Van Beckum made three misrepresentations to the court regarding the client’s knowledge of the discovery violations and of the June 14, 2004 hearing. First, when asked by the court if his client was aware of the June 14, 2004 hearing and what “was going on” during the hearing, Van Beckum said “Yes,” even though he had not advised the client of the hearing or of its subject matter as of June 14, 2004. Second, in response to Van Beckum’s statements about his personal problems and his need to withdraw from the case, the court asked Van Beckum, “Have you had any conversations with [the client] as to why he is not here so he may have - you’ve had some time to basically indicate there might be some… alternate counsel here to basically pick up with things?” In response to that question, Van Beckum stated, “My client’s business has him on the road today. He’s been on the road recently with business.” The court then clarified, “You told him about this situation?” To which Van Beckum responded, “I told him that he needed to… find somebody else to deal with the situation that we are in; that I would be explaining to the Court my position today. And that again, depending on the Court’s ruling [on the pending motions to dismiss, for summary judgment and for sanctions], whatever portion of the case proceeded, he would require new counsel.” Third, the transcript records that Van Beckum advised the court, “My client wants to prosecute the case and wishes for the ability to do so without counsel. I explained to my client the need for someone else to take over the case.” However, as of that date, Van Beckum had not advised the client of his personal problems, of his need to withdraw from the case, or of the client’s need to obtain successor counsel or whether the client wanted to prosecute the case pro se. Therefore, as of the date of the hearing, the client had not expressed any intention with regard to whether he would obtain successor counsel or proceed pro se

During the June 14, 2004 hearing, the judge made several statements from the bench indicating that the plaintiffs had failed to comply with discovery requests and, therefore, should be sanctioned in some manner. Further, the judge indicated that he considered the client’s failure to appear for the June 14, 2004 hearing and his knowledge of the discovery violations in weighing the motions before the court. Specifically, the court stated, “I think it is significant that [the client] was here before. He heard me give a lecture at that point.” Further, the court stated, “And [the client’s] actions are significant too. I can’t ask him questions. [‘]Do you want to pursue this?[’] If he had come in and said, Judge, I want to pursue this matter - - he’s not here. And, you know, Mr. Van Beckum, you didn’t tell him not to come here? And he knew what this was about, right?” To which Van Beckum responded, “Yes.”

While Van Beckum did, at some point during the hearing, ask the judge if he would consider postponing a ruling on the pending motions and allow the client time to retain successor counsel and file something responsive to the motions, Van Beckum did not correct the misrepresentations he had made to the court. Therefore, the court continued to believe that the client was aware of the discovery violations and of the June 14, 2004 hearing, but had chosen not to attend the hearing.

During the hearing, the judge indicated that some sanction was due from the plaintiffs, and stated that he would determine the nature of that sanction, ranging from dismissal with prejudice to monetary sanctions, following the hearing. Following Van Beckum’s misrepresentations and the judge’s initial determination that some sanction was warranted, several of the attorneys representing the various defendants and the judge engaged in a discussion of the appropriate sanction. Some portion of that discussion focused on the mistaken understanding of the judge and of several of the attorneys representing the defendants that the client had attended the February 2004 hearing, was aware of the discovery violations and of the pending motions, and that he was aware of the June 14th hearing and had chosen not to attend it. During this time Van Beckum did not correct his misstatements or otherwise advise the court that his client was unaware of these matters.

On June 15, 2004, the day after the hearing, Van Beckum advised the client for the first time of his need to withdraw from the representation. At that time, Van Beckum did not, however, advise the client of the discovery sanctions at the hearings that took place on February 23 and June 14, 2004. The client immediately hired successor counsel to represent him and his company in the suit. Successor counsel advised the client of the pending motions, the prior sanctions and of the need for immediate action to prevent the case from being dismissed or any sanction issued.

Thereafter, the client’s successor counsel represented to the court that the client had been unaware of the prior discovery violations and sanctions, and of the February 23 and June 14, 2004 hearings. Nevertheless, on August 10, 2004 the court dismissed the case without prejudice, subject to the condition that the plaintiffs could not re-file the suit unless they paid attorney’s fees to some the defendants in the amount of $20,004.31 when the case was re-filed. The order further provided that upon any re-filing, the plaintiffs would be subject to an immediate hearing at which they would have to demonstrate “the viability of the allegations in the complaint from a factual and legal basis before the case can proceed to any further scheduling.” The order further warned, “At that time, the Court may decide that the case should be dismissed with prejudice.” The order referenced that “at the [June 14, 2004] hearing [the court] established findings sufficient for a sanction.” The order also referenced that the plaintiffs, through successor counsel, had informed the court that Van Beckum never advised the client of the motions to dismiss or of the June 14, 2004 hearing at which the court “established findings sufficient for a sanction.” Regarding successor counsel’s description of the plaintiffs’ knowledge, the order stated:

Additionally, Van Beckum never served any discovery requests on the defendants on behalf of his clients, making it difficult for his clients to meet the terms ordered by the court with regard to re-filing the case. Between January and April 2004, the client made repeated phone calls to Van Beckum’s office and sent emails to Van Beckum regarding the status of the case, the status of the witness list and experts and the status of discovery. The client was rarely able to reach Van Beckum by phone and rarely did Van Beckum return the client’s calls. When Van Beckum did speak with the client, he assured the client that he was moving the action along and that discovery was in process. Van Beckum also falsely advised the client that extensions had been granted on the various deadlines in the Scheduling Order. While Van Beckum did advise the client that the defendants were burying him in discovery, which was interfering with his ability to complete the plaintiffs’ discovery, Van Beckum assured the client that he was capable of handling the case.

Finally, after the client hired successor counsel, he and his counsel had difficulty obtaining information from Van Beckum related to the case despite several letters and telephone calls to Van Beckum.